New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-05-19
UNIFORM TAXATION IND THE VEDDER

BILL.
OF all the objections raised against the We'd
der bill the most frivolous lis that which the
Democratic leader in tho Assembly selected to
stand upon in his speech against the bill on
Tuesday. He declared that it was objection
able because the TAXATION it provided for was
not uniform. As the presumption that this
objection comes from the Executive Chamber
is not strained. and as it is possible that the
Governor is relying upon it for veto argu
ment, it is worth while to show in advance
the weakness of the pretence. The idea of
making liquor taxes literally uniform in Mr..
Sheehan's sense-that is, of applying exactly
tho Same impost all over the State-is so puer-
lie that it could hardly be advanced seriously.
The liquor laws Of all the States which have
enacted such legislation are graduated on
various systems, one main object of this gradu
..ton being to secure uniformity by claSsih-
cation according to the value of the property
or business taxed. In one or two States, such
as Texas, there is a general State license Of
$3.50, but every city, town and village is in
such cases authorized to impose local taxation
at pleasure. in Illinois the principle of fixing
the minimum is followed. 1t is $500 for
spirits and $3.50 for malt liquors, and 1t is
left to the local authorities to raise these rates
az high as they choose, even TO prohibitory
figures. In Pennsylvania the new license law
makes licenses in cities of the first, second
and third class $500 in all other cities $500 4.
in boroughs $3.50; and in townships $40.
Yet no complaint is heard in any Of these
States Of lack Of uniformity In the taxation.
In Texas the whole Of the State tax goes
into the State treasury, the cities and town
ships retaining only the local leyies. Yet 1t
has not occurred to the Texas people that the
city taxpayers wererobbcd by this arrangement.
and strangely enough it has been left 10 New
York Democrats to advance the new and un.
tenable proposition that classification for tax
purposes is a violation Of the principle Of uni
formity. Mr.. Shcehan even had the hardi-
hood to l"deny that the New York man is
better able TO pay high license fee than q
man in small village" Perhaps Mr.. Shcchan
will also maintain that there is no reason why
real estate should be more valuable in me-
tropolis than in a hamlet, or that rents should
10 higher in the one than in the other. He GER
tainly would find 1t as easy TO demonstrate
either Of these propositions as that which nc
advanced But it is not worth whilo for him
or for his leader to venture uron this danger
Gus ground. The plain fact Is that the princl-
po Of tho Vedder bill is the principle upon
which all State liquor taxation is based, and that
il is just and equitable principle. 1t is right
to tax city saloon-keepcrs more than village
saloon keepers, and it is always done, and laws
which operate in tho Same way arc now in
operation in many States and arc giving gen.
eral satisfaction If the Vedder bill is We
toed it will have TO be attacked on some other
prctext The want of uniformity objection
will not hold water. Governor Hill will also
have to show why he undertakes TO deprive
the State of revenue of between $3,000,OOC
and $4O0O,OOO, and why he refuses to re-
lievc tho taxpayers TO that extent.